| Identifier | T0630 [T] |
| Title | 佛說成具光明定意經 [T] |
| Date | E. Han [Saitō 2013 ] |
| Translator 譯 | Zhi Yao 支曜 [T] |
There may be translations for this text listed in the Bibliography of Translations from the Chinese Buddhist Canon into Western Languages. If translations are listed, this link will take you directly to them. However, if no translations are listed, the link will lead only to the head of the page.
There are resources for the study of this text in the SAT Daizōkyō Text Dabatase (Saṃgaṇikīkṛtaṃ Taiśotripiṭakaṃ).
| Preferred? | Source | Pertains to | Argument | Details |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
No |
[T] T = CBETA [Chinese Buddhist Electronic Text Association]. Taishō shinshū daizōkyō 大正新脩大藏經. Edited by Takakusu Junjirō 高楠順次郎 and Watanabe Kaigyoku 渡邊海旭. Tokyo: Taishō shinshū daizōkyō kankōkai/Daizō shuppan, 1924-1932. CBReader v 5.0, 2014. |
Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
Yes |
[Nattier 2010] Nattier, Jan. "Re-evaluating Zhu Fonian's Shizhu duanjie jing (T309): Translation or Forgery?" Annual Report of The International Research Insitute for Advanced Buddhology at Soka University 13 (2010): 256. — 241-242 n. 26 |
Probably composed in China. Some of the connections between T309 and T630 had already been partially studied before Nattier by Pu (2008). Nattier also refers to Nattier (2008): 96-102. The terminology of the text does not show up anywhere again for a long time after the Han. It enjoyed a lot of attention during the late fourth century, and then disappeared from view again. Nishiwaki has studied a fragment of a commentary on the text at DH. It seems to draw on material from Mokṣala, and Nishiwaki argues that it must have been produced after Mokṣala but before KJ. He dates the DH ms on paleographic grounds to the early 4C. T309 incorporates passages from the text, also testifying to its importance in this period. Internal evidence suggests that it is unlikely that the text could have been written in India. It contains various elements that Nattier has otherwise been unable to find in Indian texts. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Zürcher 1991] Zürcher, Erik. "A New Look at the Earliest Chinese Buddhist Texts." in Koichi Shinohara and Gregory Schopen, eds. From Benares to Beijing: Essays on Buddhism and Chinese Religion in Honour of Prof. Jan Yün-hua, 277-304. Oakville, Canada: Mosaic Press, 1991. — 284 |
Zürcher labels Zhi Yao's Chengju guangming dingyi jing 成具光明定意經 T630 a “highly individual creation.” He notes that proper names and technical terms are conveyed with Chinese equivalents which “do not occur in the works of earlier translators.” Furthermore, the language of T630 is “more classical than that of any other Han Buddhist text.” Entry author: Sophie Florence |
|
|
|
No |
[Saitō 2013 ] Saitō Takanobu 齊藤隆信. Kango butten ni okeru ge no kenkyū 漢語仏典における偈の研究. Kyoto: Hōzōkan, 2013. — 214-216 |
According to Saitō, it is clear that T630 was produced in the Latter Han period, since its vocabulary is old. It contains verses in the four-character 四言 and five-character 五言 styles. Subsequently, Saitō quotes the first five-character verse in the text (15.452b4-15.452c4) with the rime 韻目 according to the Guangyun 広韻 and the rime class 韻部 of the Liu, Song and N. Wei 劉宋北魏 for each pair of lines. He points out that all of the rhyming characters 韻字 are in the ping tone 平声 and most of them have a nasal consonant final 陽声韻, viz., end with –n or –ng. Saitō then cites the second five-character verse (15.455b16-15.455b27) to show all of the end rhymes also have a nasal consonant final 陽声韻 (214-215). Saitō maintains that such a consistent use of the nasal consonant finals 陽声韻 is not coincidental, but the result of a deliberate attempt to achieve a certain effect with the resonating nasal sound. However, he points out that these verses still fall short of true rhyme, and states that he will discuss the matter further in Part II, Chapter 12 of his work (216). Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Nattier 2008] Nattier, Jan. A Guide to the Earliest Chinese Buddhist Translations: Texts from the Eastern Han 東漢 and Three Kingdoms 三國 Periods. Bibliotheca Philologica et Philosophica Buddhica X. Tokyo: The International Research Institute for Advanced Buddhology, Soka University, 2008. — 96-102 |
Nattier notes that external evidence, dating back to Sengyou, would seem to make the ascription of T630 to Zhi Yao unproblematic. However, it features vocabulary which, if it were genuinely a Han text, would be unusual in having no successors. The text attracted considerable attention in the late fourth century, when it was used in the Feng fa yao of Xi Chao and the Zhao lun of Sengzhao. In the same period, it is also used as a source for Zhu Fonian's Chinese composition, T309. Thereafter, however, it largely disappears from view. Nishiwaki argued, on the basis of a manuscript fragment of a commentary, that the text must postdate *Mokṣala's T221, but have been produced before T223. Paleographic evidence seems to date the Turfan manuscript to the fourth century. These various indications, while circumstantial, may point to something more like a fourth century date for the text. Internal evidence suggests that the text may be a Chinese composition, for instance, a gloss on 一心 in terms of filial piety, and also breaking it down into 一 and 心 separately. It also contains elements, or groupings of elements, which would be unusual in an Indic text, such as various groupings mentioned among the audience of the sūtra; or the fact that the Buddha "straightens his robe" 整服 before he speaks, where such a gesture is usually used to show respect to a superior. The text also includes various items of terminology that may be traceable to earlier Chinese translation texts. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Su 1995] Su Jinren 蘇晉仁. "Xuyan" 序言. In Su Jinren and Xiao Lianzi 蕭鍊子, eds. Chu sanzang ji ji 出三蔵記集. Zhongguo Fojiao dianji xuankan 中國佛教典籍選刊, 1-32. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1995. |
For the 異出經緣 of CSZJJ, LDSBJ T2034 (XLIX) 125c17-126a8 reports a different number of texts and fascicles to that found in our present CSZJJ. Naitō suggests that the difference in numbering between the LDSBJ report and the transmitted CSZJJ lies in the last 9 texts in the list. [T2145 (LV) 15a8-25 --- MR.] This list of nine texts also differs in form from the bulk of the section that precedes it. The preceding 34 texts in the same list are divided in an orderly manner into sūtra-vinaya-śāstra, but these nine items mess up that categorisation [all are sūtras again --- MR.] Annotations to earlier items give number of fascicles, but here, only names of translators are given. Further, there are items among the nine that were already recorded in the preceding, more orderly list of 34, but which are here recorded again with errors. On this basis, Naitō proposes that these 9 items are a later addition, added in a rather sloppy manner. This section also features the 長者須達經 of *Guṇavr̥ddhi 求那毘地, which appears in a list at the end of the 撰出經論 that Naitō also suspects of being a later addition. He therefore proposes that this section was added at the same time as that list, sometime after 504. The titles affected by this hypothesis are: 成具光明經 For the same list, Su Jinren (20, without reference to Naitō) also points out some of the same problems. Su does not believe that this list could have been added to the text by Sengyou himself, partly on the basis of the fact that the annotations appear to reflect too much ignorance. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Bielu CSZJJ] Bielu 別錄 as reported by CSZJJ 出三藏記集. — T2145 (LV) 6b13, 15 |
CSZJJ cites a/the Bie lu for the following ascriptions to Lokaṣema: 伅真陀羅經二卷 ... 別錄所載, 6b13, T624 Entry author: Michael Radich |
|